{"id":119383,"date":"2004-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2"},"modified":"2018-08-30T11:45:57","modified_gmt":"2018-08-30T06:15:57","slug":"azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2","title":{"rendered":"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 22\/04\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ\nand\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice R.BANUMATHI\n\nCriminal Appeal No.54 of 1997\n\nAzhagarswamy                                   ..Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState\nrep.by Inspector of Police,\nTirumangalam Taluk Police Station,\nTirumangalam.                               ..Respondent\n\n\n        Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374  of  Criminal  Procedure  Code\nagainst  the  judgment dated 03.01.1997 made in S.C.No.241 of 1994 on the file\nof II Additional Sessions Court, Madurai.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.G.Krishnamurthy\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.E.Raja,\n                Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.BANUMATHI, J.,<\/p>\n
        Accused is the Appellant in S.C.241\/1994 on the file of II  Additional
\nSessions Judge,  Madurai.  By the Judgment dated 03.01.1997, the II Additional
\nSessions Judge, Madurai convicted the Appellant \/ Accused  under  Sec.302  IPC
\nand sentenced him to suffer Life Imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Case of Prosecution could be stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                Deceased  AngalaEaswari is the sister of P.W.1 Pandiarajan and
\nP.W.2 Pandiammal.  While P.W.1 Pandiarajan was residing at  Pulianthoppu,  the
\nAccused  was  residing in the nearby house of P.W.1 and was doing ‘ Ehy;ghuk;’
\nbusiness with bullock cart at  Madurai  Pulianthoppu.    Accused  was  already
\nmarried and  having  children  through  his first wife.  While the Accused was
\nresiding nearby the house of P.W.1, the  Accused  developed  illicit  intimacy
\nwith  deceased  AngalaEaswari,  due  to  which  the  said AngalaEaswari became
\npregnant.  First wife’s family of the Accused lived  in  Madurai  Town.    The
\nAccused  married  AngalaEaswari  as  his  second  wife  and  they  settled  in
\nKeeriyagoundenpatty.  A male child  was  born  to  the  Accused  and  deceased
\nAngalaEaswari.   While  the  deceased was living with the Accused, she used to
\nvisit the house of her mother Meena and inform P.W.1 and  mother  Meena  about
\nthe frequent quarrel by the accused suspecting her fidelity or chastity.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  On 16.05.1993 – 9.30 PM the Accused went to the house of P.W.1 and
\ninformed  them that AngalaEaswari is admitted for treatment of injuries due to
\nelectric shock at Thirumangalam Government Hospital.  P.Ws.1 and 2  and  their
\nmother Meena immediately went to Thirumangalam Government Hospital.  They came
\nto  know  that  AngalaEaswari was not admitted in that hospital for treatment.
\nWhen P.W.1 and deceased Meena along with their relatives immediately  went  to
\nthe  house  of  the  Accused  at Keeriyagoundenpatty, they found AngalaEaswari
\ndead.  There was also a marked contusion around the neck as if a rope was tied
\naround the neck.   P.Ws.1  and  2  and  their  mother  Meena  expressed  their
\nsuspicion against the Accused.  On knowing the same, the Accused ran away from
\nthe house and the people gathered.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Complaint  and  Registration  of  the case:  Meena – the mother of
\ndeceased AngalaEaswari went to Thirumangalam Police Station and lodged  Ex.P.7\n<\/p>\n
– Complaint.    P.W.8  – Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam registered the
\ncase in Crime No.128\/1993 under  Sec.174  of  Crl.P.C.    in  Ex.P.8  –  First
\nInformation Report.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Investigation:    P.W.8 – Sub Inspector of Police had taken up the
\npreliminary investigation.  Scene of occurrence was inspected in the  presence
\nof P.W.6   –  Village  Administrative  Officer  and  one  Pichai.    Ex.P.4  –
\nObservation Mahazar and Ex.P.9 – Rough Plan were  prepared  at  the  scene  of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Inquest:  On 17.05.1993 from 10.15 AM to 12.15 PM, P.W.8 conducted
\nthe inquest on the body of the deceased AngalaEaswari and prepared the Inquest
\nReport –  Ex.P-10.  After inquest, the body was entrusted to P.W.7 – Constable
\nGovindaraj for being handed over to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Post Mortem:  Pursuant to the Requisition from  the  Inspector  of
\nPolice  (Ex.P-1),  P.W.4  –  Dr.Nagendran  conducted  autopsy  on  the body of
\ndeceased AngalaEaswari.  He noted
\nan incomplete circular marking present below the hyoid bone.
\nInternal Examination:  On dissection of  the  neck  subcutaneous  tissues  are
\ncongested.  Ecchymosis present.  Extravasation of blood present.\n<\/p>\n
Opining  that AngalaEaswari died of Asphyxia due to compression of the neck by
\na rope, P.W.4 issued Ex.P.2 – Post Mortem  Certificate;  and  Ex.P.3  –  Final
\nOpinion.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Further  Investigation:   P.W.9 – Inspector of Police had taken up
\nthe further investigation.  On 20.05.1993 – 8.00 AM he arrested the Accused in
\nMelakottai in  the  presence  of  P.W.6  and  witness  Pichai.      On   being
\ninterrogated, the Accused had voluntarily confessed to his guilt.  Pursuant to
\nthe  admissible  portion  of his confession statement ( Ex.P-5), M.O.1 – Nylon
\nrope was recovered from the house of the Accused under Ex.P.6 – Mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  On completion of the formalities of the  investigation,  P.W.11  –
\nInspector  of  Police filed the charge sheet against the accused on 01.04.1994
\nfor an offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  To substantiate the charge against  the  Accused,  in  the  trial
\ncourt, P.Ws.1 to  11 were examined.  Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked.  M.Os.1 to 8
\nwere remanded to the Court by the Prosecution.   The  Accused  was  questioned
\nunder Sec.313 of Crl.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances and evidence.
\nThe  Accused  denied  all  of  them  and  stated that a false case was foisted
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Upon consideration of the evidence, referring to  the  injury  on
\nthe neck,  death  was  found to have been proved to be homicidal.  The learned
\nSessions Judge mainly pointed out the conduct of the Accused in  giving  false
\ninformation  to  P.Ws.1  and  2  and  their  mother  Meena  that  the deceased
\nAngalaEaswari was seriously injured due to  electric  shock  and  admitted  in
\nThirumangalam Government  Hospital.    Such  conduct  of  the Accused was held
\nagainst the Accused as relevant under Sec.8 of the Indian Evidence Act.  Point
\nurged onbehalf of the Accused on the non-examination of four  year  old  child
\nKarnan  was negatived by the trial court and the learned Sessions Judge was of
\nthe view that nothing would materialise by the examination of child witness.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Assailing the conviction and the findings of the trial court, the
\nlearned counsel for the Accused mainly urged that non-examination of four year
\nold child witness is fatal to the Prosecution case.    Finding  of  the  trial
\ncourt  is  also  attacked  on the ground that the trial court erred in placing
\nreliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are brother and sister of  the
\ndeceased.  The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court erred in
\ndrawing  the  impermissible  inferences  in  referring  to  the conduct of the
\nAccused that he gave false information to P.Ws.1 and 2 and  that  he  had  run
\naway from  the  scene  of  occurrence.    It  is further submitted that in the
\nabsence of examination of other witnesses from the surrounding area, it  would
\nbe  unsafe  to  base  the conviction upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the
\nmedical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Countering the arguments of the Accused, the  learned  Additional
\nPublic  Prosecutor  has drawn the attention of the Court to Ex.P.7 – Complaint
\nand submitted that even from the beginning  needle  of  suspicion  is  pointed
\ntowards the  Accused.   The learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered the
\narguments of the Accused laying emphasis upon the conduct of  the  Accused  on
\nthree aspects;\n<\/p>\n
(i) that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the Accused where they
\nresided in the same house in Keeriyagoundenpatty;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  conduct  of the Accused in giving false information to P.Ws.1 and 2 that
\ndeceased  sustained  injuries  due  to  electric   shock   and   admitted   in
\nThirumangalam Government Hospital for treatment;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) conduct  of the Accused in running away from the house when P.  Ws.1 and
\n2 expressed suspicion against the Accused.\n<\/p>\n
It is submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence  and
\nthe proved circumstances and the conviction warrant no interference.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   Upon  reassessment  of  the  evidence  and  materials on record,
\nimpugned judgment and submissions of both sides, in our considered  view,  the
\nfollowing points arise for consideration in this Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the Accused is proved to be responsible for the homicidal death of
\nthe deceased AngalaEaswari ?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   Whether  the  conviction  of  the  Appellant  \/  Accused  warrants  any
\ninterference ?\n<\/p>\n
        15.  From the facts and evidence detailed above, it is clear that case
\nof the Prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence.  In every  case  based
\nupon circumstantial evidence, the question that would need to be determined is
\nwhether  all  the links in the chain of circumstances are so complete so as to
\nestablish the  guilt  of  the  Accused  ruling  out  the  possibility  of  his
\ninnocence.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  It is not in dispute that the Accused already being a married man
\nand  having  children  through his first wife, developed illicit intimacy with
\nAngalaEaswari.  Accused married her as  a  second  wife.    Both  Accused  and
\nAngalaEaswari had  a  four  year old son by name Karnan.  Accused and deceased
\nwere residing in Keeriyagoundenpatty; first wife of  the  Accused  was  living
\nwith her  children  in  Madurai  Town.    The  Accused  frequently visited the
\ndeceased in the residence at  Keeriyagoundenpatty.    During  the  questioning
\nunder  Sec.313  of  Crl.P.C.,  the  Accused  admitted  his  marriage  with the
\ndeceased.  He also admitted having four year old son.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   Deceased  is  the  sister  of  P.W.1  Pandiarajan  and  P.W.2  –
\nPandiammal.   Their  mother  Meena  was  then alive and was the Complainant in
\nEx.P-7.  In their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 have consistently  spoken  about  the
\nquarrel between  the  Accused and the deceased.  P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that
\ndeceased AngalaEaswari frequently used to visit their house and tell them that
\nthe Accused was quarrelling with her suspecting her fidelity.  We find, by the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Prosecution has proved the ill-will that swelled  up
\nin the  mind  of  the Accused to commit the murder of his wife.  We are of the
\nview that by proof of motive, Prosecution case is rendered probable.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  To establish the guilt of the Accused,  Prosecution  relies  upon
\nthe following circumstances;\n<\/p>\n
(i) death of AngalaEaswari is homicidal;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) That Accused and deceased were residing in the same house.  That deceased
\nwas last  seen alive in the company of the Accused.  The Accused alone had the
\nopportunity to commit the offence;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) conduct of the Accused in  giving  false  news  to  P.Ws.1  and  2  that
\nAngalaEaswari  sustained  grievous injuries due to electric shock and admitted
\nin Thirumangalam Government Hospital;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) When P.Ws.1 and 2 expressed their suspicion against the Accused,  conduct<\/p>\n
of the Accused in running away from the house and his subsequent abscondence.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Arrest of the Accused on 20.05.1993 and recovery of M.O.1 – Nylon rope at
\nhis instance.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Circular marking injury around the neck was noted by  P.Ws.1  and\n<\/p>\n
2.   P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the injury which they found on the body of
\nAngalaEaswari.  In Ex.P.10 – Inquest Report also, it has been stated thus:-
\n@\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ,we;jthpd; fGj;jpd; Kd;gFjpapy;  g[jpa  fhaj;  jGk;g[  ,Ug;  gjhYk;
\nmthpd;   jhahh;   kPdh   jd;kfspd;  (m’;fhs  <!;thp)apd;  ,wg;gpy;  re;  njfk;
\n,Ug;gjhft[k;.  mth;pd; fzth; mHfh;rhkpia re;njfg;gLtjhft[k; TWfpwhh;\/\/\/\/\/\/@<\/p>\n
        20.  By the evidence of P.W.4 – Dr.Nagendran and Ex.P.2 – Post  Mortem
\nCertificate, death is proved to be homicidal.  During autopsy, P.W.4 noted
\nan incomplete circular marking present below the hyoid bone …..
\nInternal examination:    On  dissection  of  the neck subcutaneous tissues are
\ncongested.  Ecchymosis present.  Extravasation of blood present.
\nP.W.4 opined that the death was due to Asphyxia due to strangulation  with  an
\nobject like M.O.1 – rope.  P.W.4 based his opinion on the following;\n<\/p>\n
(i) Incomplete circular marking present below the hyoid bone;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) No possibility for hanging;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Congestion of the tissues present ecchymosis present;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Seminal discharge present in the Vagina;\n<\/p>\n
(v) Strangulation of the Windpipe with a Rope.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Certainly not due to Electrocution.\n<\/p>\n
Thus  death  is proved to be homicidal by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the
\nunimpeachable medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  As we have already noted,  the  Accused  and  the  deceased  were
\nhaving their residence in Keeriyagoundenpatty.  Case of Prosecution is that on
\nthe  evening  of 16.05.1993 the Accused strangulated the deceased with M.O.1 –
\nNylon rope.  The scene of occurrence  is  the  residential  house,  where  the
\nAccused and  the  deceased  lived  together.   Since Accused and deceased were
\nliving together, Accused alone had the opportunity of committing the  offence.
\nThe  opportunity available to the Accused to perpetrate the offence unerringly
\npoints to his guilt.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  Presence of the Accused in the house at the  time  of  occurrence
\nand the presence of Semen in the vagina of deceased AngalaEaswari clearly show
\nthat  the  Accused,  who  was the husband of the deceased, had coitus with the
\ndeceased prior to the occurrence.  In our considered view, presence  of  semen
\nin  the vagina of the deceased and that the Accused had access to the deceased
\nis the strong circumstance against the Accused.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  On the date of occurrence, the Accused diverted the attention  of
\nP.Ws.1 and  2  and  their mother Meena.  At about 9.30 PM, Accused went to the
\nhouse of P.Ws.1 and 2 and informed them that AngalaEaswari sustained  injuries
\ndue  to  electric  shock and admitted in Thirumangalam Government Hospital for
\ntreatment.  In his opinion, P.W.4 – Dr.  Nagendran  has  categorically  denied
\nthat the  death  could  not have occurred due to Electrocution.  Further P.W.5
\nThambi working as a Wireman in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board  has  stated  that
\nall the electric wires and the service connection in the house of the deceased
\nwere found  to  be  intact.    He  has expressed his opinion that there was no
\npossibility of causing death due to shock since all the wires were intact.  On
\nbeing diverted, P.Ws.1 and 2 and their mother Meena went to the  hospital  and
\nfound that  AngalaEaswari  was not admitted to the hospital.  Immediately they
\nwent to the house at Keeriyagoundenpatty.  They found AngalaEaswari dead  with
\ninjury over the neck.  When P.Ws.1 and 2 expressed their suspicion towards the
\nAccused, the Accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed much reliance
\nupon the conduct of the Accused and contended that his conduct in giving wrong
\ninformation  to  P.Ws.1 and 2 and running away from the scene of occurrence is
\nvery much relevant under Sec.8 of the Indian Evidence Act.  The state of  mind
\nof the  Accused can be judged from the surrounding circumstances.  By what had
\nsubsequently taken place, the criminal  intention  of  the  Accused  could  be
\ninferred.   The criminal intention of the Accused is clear from his conduct in
\ngiving false information to P.Ws.1 and 2 and  their  mother  Meena  to  divert
\ntheir attention.    Likewise,  the conduct of the Accused in running away from
\nthe place of occurrence when P.Ws.1 and 2 and  their  mother  Meena  expressed
\ndoubts against  the  Accused.   As rightly submitted by the learned Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor, this conduct of the Accused is  very  much  relevant  under
\nSec.8 of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act.  The learned Sessions Judge was right in
\ninferring the criminal intention of the Accused from his conduct.  By  careful
\nevaluation  of  proved  circumstances,  we  find no reason to take a different
\nview.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  Conduct of the Accused is not merely  running  away  and  flight.
\nBut his  abscondence  was  nearly  for  five  days.   Only after five days, on
\n20.05.1993 – 8.00 AM the Accused was arrested in Melakottai.  On the basis  of
\nhis confession statement (Ex.P-5), from their residence in Keeriyagoundenpatty
\nM.O.1  –  Nylon rope (with 3 knots) was seized under Ex.P.6 – Seizure Mahazar.
\nRecovery of M.O.1 at the instance of the  Accused  is  a  strong  circumstance
\nagainst the  Accused.    No  reasonable  explanation  is  forthcoming from the
\nAccused.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  As we have noted earlier, Accused and deceased had a  male  child
\nby name  Karnan  aged  about  four years.  It is contended that there is every
\npossibility of the said Karnan being present in the house having witnessed the
\noccurrence.  Main contention  urged  onbehalf  of  the  Accused  is  that  the
\nnon-examination  of child Karnan either during the investigation or before the
\nCourt is fatal to the Prosecution case.  By perusal of  the  judgment  of  the
\ncourt  below, it is clear that this point was urged before the trial court and
\nthe learned Sessions Judge carefully considered the same  and  found  that  by
\nexamination of  four year old child witness, nothing would materialise.  Child
\nKarnan was aged about only four years.  Even if examined during  investigation
\nor  in  the Court, it would have been only an evidence of a child witness, who
\nmight have  been  unable  to  discern  between  truth  and  falsehood.     The
\nInvestigating  Officer  and  the Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial in
\nthe Court of Session, might have formed an opinion that the child Karnan would
\nnot have developed proper understanding.  The child witness  being  aged  only
\nabout  four  years,  Prosecution  cannot be faulted for non-examination of the
\nchild witness.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  Equally, we are  not  impressed  upon  the  point  urged  on  the
\nnonexamination of independent witnesses.  The residential house of the Accused
\nand  deceased  in  Keeriyagoundenpatty  is surrounded by few other residential
\nhouses.  On the factual circumstances of the case, Prosecution could not  have
\nexamined any  witness for the occurrence.  The occurrence was inside the house
\nwhich was between the husband and  wife;  that  too,  after  the  Accused  had
\ndeveloped  privacy with the deceased and also had coitus with her prior to the
\noccurrence.  In that circumstance, it would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  the
\nProsecution to examine any independent witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   In our considered view, the proved circumstances if put together
\npoints to one direction – namely, the guilt of the Accused.  The circumstances
\nare fairly established by the Prosecution.  We are of the view that the proved
\ncircumstances unerringly point towards the guilt  of  the  Accused.    In  our
\nconsidered view, the trial court was right in finding that the Prosecution has
\nestablished the guilt of the Accused.\n<\/p>\n
        29.   The  learned  Sessions  Judge  has carefully analysed the entire
\nevidence and circumstances.  Recorded findings are based upon sound reasonings
\nand proper inferences, which according to us, are in conformity with facts and
\ncircumstances of the case.  The learned Sessions Judge has  given  cogent  and
\nconvincing reasonings  for  accepting  the  case  of  the Prosecution.  Having
\ncarefully considered the evidence, we do not find any reason to interfere with
\nthe findings of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  In the result, the judgment of the trial court  \/  II  Additional
\nSessions  Court,  Madurai,  in S.C.No.241\/1994 dated 03.01.1997 convicting the
\nAppellant \/ Accused under Sec.302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed
\nupon him is confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  The trial court is directed to take immediate steps for  securing
\nthe  Accused  to  commit  him  to  prison  for serving the remaining period of
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet :  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
gl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The II Additional sessions Judge,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Principal Sessions Judge,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent,
\nCentral Prison,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Collector,
\nMadurai District,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Inspector of Police,
\nThirumangalam Taluk Police Station,
\nThirumangalam.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 22\/04\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ and The Honourable Mrs.Justice R.BANUMATHI Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1997 Azhagarswamy ..Appellant -Vs- State rep.by Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Tirumangalam. ..Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 […]<\/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-119383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAzhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 - 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\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-30T06:15:57+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\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T06:15:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\"},\"wordCount\":3009,\"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\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\",\"name\":\"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T06:15:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 - 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\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-30T06:15:57+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\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T06:15:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2"},"wordCount":3009,"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\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2","name":"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T06:15:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azhagarswamy-vs-state-on-22-april-2004-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Azhagarswamy vs State on 22 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/119383","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=119383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}